I have been a vegetarian for about 1 year and recently I have been concerned about my levels of vitamin B12. Before I became a vegetarian I most likely should have done more research regarding the risks that vegetarians take in developing inadequate B12 levels.
I am now reconsidering being a vegetarian based on facts I have obtained about vitamin B12.
My concern originated from the revelation that vitamin B12, which is essential to our health and nervous system, cannot be obtained from any non-animal source. This is a strong indication that vegetarianism is not a natural diet - contrary to how vegetarian like to describe their diet.
Yesterday I purchased some B12 supplements (methylcobalamin) and while at the pharmasy I researched detailed information about B12. I discovered B12 supplements are synthetic. This fact, I find is frightening. Have we completed enough research to be sure regularly consuming synthetic substances such as synthetic B12 cannot cause any side effects or change the way our bodies were meant to function now or in the future? Have we given this the test of time, at least one lifetime to be certain? This would require an entire generation of users - at least 80 year or more for certainty. I am very doubtful we can be certain beyond a reasonable doubt of the safety of consuming synthetic B12 or any synthetic substance.
For example, yesterday I was reading in our local newspaper about the possible dangers of using cosmetic products such as shaving cream:
"Health Canada believes the chemical concentration in cosmetic products is too low to cause cancer. However, most research into health effects of grooming aids focusses on short-term rather than long-term systematic risks from the cumulative effects of daily exposure. In addition, the majority of these ingredients have not been evaluated for safety - alone or in combination - by government or other public-health institutions. Synthetic fragrances found in most men's grooming products are a major concern as they cause about 30 percent of all adverse reactions..."
It is data such as this that has lead me to be rightfully suspicious of synthetic products and/or unnatural human habits. For example, I am also not a fan of the use of plastics, especially for food storage.
It would now seem to be that a limited consumption of animal-based products such as meat must now be justified in order to maintain the required level of B12 our bodies need to function. And denying our bodies of the nutrients it requires is nothing short of negligence.
I would like to believe that the vegetarian diet is the perfect diet for our health and that animal food sources are truly unnecessary for us. I was strongly convinced of the ideals of vegetarianism - I have been a strict vegetarian for 1 year. However, I am now beginning to question this logic because of the apparent need for B12.
I must now challenge vegetarians in fully believing that their diet is more natural than an animal-based source diet based on these presented facts. It certainly no longer seems to be a more natural diet. I am aware that B12 levels only have to be very low for adequate health - stores last up to 30 years. However, after these B12 stores are used, they must be returned back to safe levels and the only *natural* solution appears to be the consumption of animal-based food products - even if only a limited amount.
I would appreciate any comments from any vegetarians to help me with this current moral ethical debate I am struggling with.
Here are some further references that have lead me to re-consider the validity of strict vegetarianism:
http://chetday.com/b12.html Two important facts need to be noted. First, many, if not most, vegans have impaired vitamin B12 metabolism. This has been verified time and again in vegan groups. Second, metabolic deficiency of vitamin B12 can be detected after as little as 22 months on the Hallelujah Diet. While serum vitamin B12 levels may still be normal for several more years, the body, especially the central nervous system, may be deficient at the cellular level. 83% of the people in our study with metabolic vitamin B12 deficiency had normal levels of serum vitamin B12. These facts have not been widely appreciated by the vegetarian community.
Other thoughts: The only known B12 source I have yet to research is the Chinese herb Angelica sinensis, commonly known as "dong quai". I will research this source however I am not very hopeful it will turn out to be a very reliable vitamin B12 source especially considering that it is not a globally available product (especially historically). It is difficult to morally justify global consumption of such a limited available product.
The other source I read about is Red Star Vegetarian Support yeast. However (to be confirmed) it appears to be only a *fortified* product - which I assume is much like we add to milk - as an unnatural supplement. I am not an advocate for supplements - in my view only the real thing can be justified.
2007-12-20 06:25:12 EST
"rainforest" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > Hello, > > I have been a vegetarian for about 1 year and recently I have been > concerned about my levels of vitamin B12. Before I became a vegetarian > I most likely should have done more research regarding the risks that > vegetarians take in developing inadequate B12 levels.
'The Bacterial Flora of Humans .. '(8) While E. coli is a consistent resident of the small intestine, many other enteric bacteria may reside here as well, including Klebsiella, Enterobacter and Citrobacter.
1. The normal flora synthesize and excrete vitamins in excess of their own needs, which can be absorbed as nutrients by the host. For example, enteric bacteria secrete Vitamin K and Vitamin B12, and lactic acid bacteria produce certain B-vitamins. .. ' http://textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html
Now read this article: The B12-Cobalt Connection - http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm
'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis. ..' http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Foods/organic.html
Emphasis added -
'Suzuki1 (1995, Japan) studied 6 vegan children eating a genmai- saishoku (GS) diet, which is based on high intakes of brown rice and contains plenty of sea vegetables, including 2-4 g of nori per day ("dried laver"); as well as hijiki, wakame, and kombu. The foods are *organically grown* and many are *high in cobalt* (buckwheat, adzuki beans, kidney beans, shiitake, hijiki). Serum B12 levels of the children are shown:
Results of Suzuki.1 age(yrs) years vegan sB12 7.1 4.4 520 7.7 4.4 720 8.6A 8.6 480 8.8A 8.8 300 12.7 10 320 14.6 10 320 average 443 (\ufffd 164) A - Exclusively breast-fed until 6 months old. Mothers had been vegan for 9.6 and 6.5 yrs prior to conception. Both mothers consumed 2 g of nori per day. ..' http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/plant
As for meat:
'Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?
Nearly two-fifths of the U.S. population may be flirting with marginal vitamin B12 status-that is, if a careful look at nearly 3,000 men and women in the ongoing Framingham (Massachusetts) Offspring Study is any indication. Researchers found that 39 percent of the volunteers have plasma B12 levels in the "low normal" range- below 258 picomoles per liter (pmol/L).
While this is well above the currently accepted deficiency level of 148 pmol/L, some people exhibit neurological symptoms at the upper level of the deficiency range, explains study leader Katherine L. Tucker. She is a nutritional epidemiologist at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston.
"I think there's a lot of undetected vitamin B12 deficiency out there," says Tucker. She noted that nearly 9 percent of the study population fell below the current deficiency level. And more than 16 percent fell below 185 pmol/L. "Many people may be deficient at this level," she says. "There is some question as to what the clinical cutoff for deficiency should be."
Deficiency can cause a type of anemia marked by fewer but larger red blood cells. It can also cause walking and balance disturbances, a loss of vibration sensation, confusion, and, in advanced cases, dementia. The body requires B12 to make the protective coating surrounding the nerves. So inadequate B12 can expose nerves to damage.
Tucker and colleagues wanted to get a sense of B12 levels spanning the adult population because most previous studies have focused on the elderly. That age group was thought to be at higher risk for deficiency. The researchers also expected to find some connection between dietary intake and plasma levels, even though other studies found no association. Some of the results were surprising. The youngest group-the 26 to 49 year olds-had about the same B12 status as the oldest group-65 and up. "We thought that low concentrations of B12 would increase with age," says Tucker. "But we saw a high prevalence of low B12 even among the youngest group."
The good news is that for many people, eating more fortified cereals and dairy products can improve B12 status almost as much as taking supplements containing the vitamin. Supplement use dropped the percentage of volunteers in the danger zone (plasma B12 below 185 pmol/L) from 20 percent to 8. Eating fortified cereals five or more times a week or being among the highest third for dairy intake reduced, by nearly half, the percentage of volunteers in that zone-from 23 and 24 percent, respectively, to 12 and 13 percent.
The researchers found no association between plasma B12 and meat, poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the bulk of B12 in the diet. "It's not because people aren't eating enough meat," Tucker says. "The vitamin isn't getting absorbed." The vitamin is tightly bound to proteins in meat and dairy products and requires high acidity to cut it loose. As we age, we lose the acid-secreting cells in the stomach. But what causes poor absorption in younger adults? Tucker speculates that the high use of antacids may contribute. But why absorption from dairy products appears to be better than from meats is a question that needs more research. Fortified cereals are a different story. She says the vitamin is sprayed on during processing and is "more like what we get in supplements."
-By Judy McBride, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff. This research is part of Human Nutrition, an ARS National Program (#107) described on the World Wide Web. Katherine L. Tucker is at the Jean Mayer USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, 711 Washington St., Boston, MA 02111; .. "Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?" was published in the August 2000 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.
2007-12-20 11:30:50 EST
On Dec 19, 4:16 pm, rainforest <designbas...@shaw.ca> wrote: > Hello, > > I have been a vegetarian for about 1 year and recently I have been > concerned about my levels of vitamin B12. Before I became a vegetarian > I most likely should have done more research regarding the risks that > vegetarians take in developing inadequate B12 levels.
Exactly right, but then the entire impetus to choosing the unnatural "lifestyle" was irrational, so it really wasn't an option for you to give rational consideration to it.
Vegetarianism /is/ unnatural, because humans are naturally omnivores. The very earliest humans, as well as our immediate hominid ancestors, ate meat. No legitimate anthropologist disputes that. Modern day humans choosing to be vegetarian is an aberrant "lifestyle" choice, not anything with a sound basis in biology.
2007-12-20 17:57:53 EST
"rainforest" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... <..> > I must now challenge vegetarians in fully believing that their diet is > more natural than an animal-based source diet based on these presented > facts.
'One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote: "The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other, would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared by cooking." .. 'Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming plants and animals according to their physical structure) wrote: "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of other animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food."
Dr. F.A. Pouchet, 19th century author of The Universe, wrote in his Pluralite' de la Race Humaine: "It has been truly said that Man is frugivorous. All the details of his intestinal canal, and above all his dentition, prove it in the most decided manner."
Professor William Lawrence, FRS, in his lectures delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons in 1822, said:
"The teeth of man have not the slightest resemblance to those of the carnivorous animals, excepting that their enamel is confined to the external surface. He possesses, indeed, teeth called canine; but they do not exceed the level of others, and are obviously unsuited to the purposes which the corresponding teeth execute in carnivorous animals. Thus we find, whether we consider the teeth and jaws, or the immediate instruments of digestion, that the human structure closely resembles that of the apes, all of whom, in their natural state, are completely herbivorous (frugivorous)."
Professor Charles Bell, FRS, wrote in his 1829 work, Anatomy, Physiology, and Diseases of the Teeth: "It is, I think, not going too far to say that every fact connected with the human organisation goes to prove that man was originally formed a frugivorous animal. This opinion is derived principally from the formation of his teeth and digestive organs, as well as from the character of his skin and the general structure of his limbs."
Professor Richard Owen, FRS, in his elaborate 1845 work, Odontography, wrote: "The apes and monkeys, whom man nearly resembles in his dentition, derive their staple food from fruits, grain, the kernels of nuts, and other forms in which the most sapid and nutritious tissues of the vegetable kingdom are elaborated; and the close resemblance between the quadrumanous and the human dentition shows that man was, from the beginning, adapted to eat the fruit of the tree of the garden." .. "Man, by nature, was never made to be a carnivorous animal," wrote John Ray, FRS, "nor is he armed for prey or rapine, with jagged and pointed teeth, and claws to rend and tear; but with gentle hands to gather fruit and vegetables, and with teeth to chew and eat them."
According to Dr. Spenser Thompson, "No physiologist would dispute with those who maintain that men ought to have a vegetable diet."
Dr. S.M. Whitaker, MRCS, LRCP, in Man's Natural Food: An Enquiry, concluded, "Comparative anatomy and physiology indicate fresh fruits and vegetables as the main food of man."
More recently, William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded: "Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease." ..' http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html
'Furthermore, William C. Roberts, M.D., Professor and Director of the Baylor University Medical Center, and Editor in Chief of the American Journal of Cardiology, stated in this peer-reviewed journal,
Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores. ..  Roberts, William C. American Journal of Cardiology. Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990 . ..' http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/examination_of_property.htm
'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59 (5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'
2007-12-20 19:09:19 EST
On Dec 20, 2:57 pm, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote: > "rainforest" <designbas...@shaw.ca> wrote in messagenews:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > <..> > > > I must now challenge vegetarians in fully believing that their diet is > > more natural than an animal-based source diet based on these presented > > facts. > > 'One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier,
Lesley the lying whore of Cork has never read any science. Instead, she's smugly content doing her usual slovenly copy-and-paste job from some site that misrepresents science.
2007-12-21 00:21:48 EST
On Dec 19, 6:16 pm, rainforest <designbas...@shaw.ca> wrote: > Hello, > > I have been a vegetarian for about 1 year and recently I have been > concerned about my levels of vitamin B12. Before I became a vegetarian > I most likely should have done more research regarding the risks that > vegetarians take in developing inadequate B12 levels. > > I am now reconsidering being a vegetarian based on facts I have > obtained about vitamin B12. > > My concern originated from the revelation that vitamin B12, which is > essential to our health and nervous system, cannot be obtained from > any non-animal source. This is a strong indication that vegetarianism > is not a natural diet - contrary to how vegetarian like to describe > their diet.
Well, unless you really, really try hard, having a "natural" diet really isn't possible in today's world. Take out canned, preserved, out of season, refrigerated, hybrided, and processed or refined food - and what do you have left?
As a vegetarian myself, it's kind of a silly proposition to call things "natural" any more.
Better living by chemistry, I say. In fact, I believe that my vegetarianism is only possibly through modern advances. Not only that, but feeding 6 billion people is only possible through modern fertilization, farming, and hybridization.
So, back to B12. I won't try to debate any of the specifics of your post about B12. But, look, I can tell you that since I started taking a "B50 supplement" with many B vitamins, and later just a plain Multivitamin with the same levels of all the B's, that my thought and mental concentration improved. I used to feel tired and sleepy every afternoon about 2 or 3PM. This crept in during my late 20's, after about 6 years of being a lacto ovo vegetarian. Was this B12 or one of the other B vitamins, that I was lacking? Was it due to not eating meat? Who knows.
> Have we completed enough research to be sure regularly > consuming synthetic substances such as synthetic B12 cannot cause any > side effects or change the way our bodies were meant to function now > or in the future? Have we given this the test of time, at least one > lifetime to be certain? This would require an entire generation of > users - at least 80 year or more for certainty. I am very doubtful we > can be certain beyond a reasonable doubt of the safety of consuming > synthetic B12 or any synthetic substance.
Of course we can't. Testing on humans got folks like Hitler (and even the US) in trouble. But, can you say that about anything in the world in the last 300 years? Just look at the changes in nearly every aspect of our lives. As you learn more and more about the foods you eat, you'll learn how many things are basically chemical engineering projects. Even when sold as natural.
But, the truth is, you can't worry about it too much. Think about the levels of problems that result in recalls and big news stories these days. You're literally talking a very small percent of problems. Latex allergies, peanut allergies, red dye allergies, potential carcingoens in saccharin, etc. etc. You hear all of these headlines, but the truth is that they're mere asterix's in terms of real risk. Lead, mercury, etc. People used to take these toxins as MEDICINE 100 years ago. Look at the history of Andrew Jackson. http://www.tennesseehistory.org/Publications/Summer-2003/andrew_jackson's_physicians.htm
For a more modern example of "over hyping" a problem, look at the painkillers pulled off the market for causing heart problems. The actual numbers of the problem are miniscule. It's a lawyer's problem on the whole, despite the quantifiable, known risk. (On the flip side, Viagra was supposed to be a boner pill... and look at the good it's brought those who use it!)
Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about it. The wiki has some interesting information to "supplement" Pearls links - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12.
Think of it this way, the major supplement companies (think, Centrum) have to do work to prevent liability issues. They're not perfect, but any obvious issues would be discovered quickly. The odds of the problem that affects a tiny percent, and that it's you? Tiny, tiny, tiny.
> For example, yesterday I was reading in our local newspaper about the > possible dangers of using cosmetic products such as shaving cream: > > "Health Canada believes the chemical concentration in cosmetic > products is too low to cause cancer. However, most research into > health effects of grooming aids focusses on short-term rather than > long-term systematic risks from the cumulative effects of daily > exposure. In addition, the majority of these ingredients have not been > evaluated for safety - alone or in combination - by government or > other public-health institutions. > Synthetic fragrances found in most men's grooming products are a major > concern as they cause about 30 percent of all adverse reactions..." > > It is data such as this that has lead me to be rightfully suspicious > of synthetic products and/or unnatural human habits. For example, I am > also not a fan of the use of plastics, especially for food storage.
Seriously, consider the practicality of what you're saying vs. the obvious realities of the world around us. How many people eat all their lives from plastic containers? Tupperware's been around since 1946! My grandfather worked for Gillette. They developed (and heavily tested) the various shaving and showering compounds nearly 50 years ago! There are very few new products other than "natural" stuff added for sales tactics.
The truth is, that the majority of these ingredients _have_ been tested. Your link has loaded language -- "by government or other public-health institutions". Bah! a false disclaimer. "they cause about 30 percent of all adverse reactions" - But, what is the frequency or severity of ANY "adverse" reaction? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 100,000?
These products _have_ been tested by the hundreds of millions, maybe billions of people who use the products every day. Yet, every industrialized nation is increasing their life spans.
For instance, look at the _actual_ toll cigarettes take. It takes most people to be over 50 before they actually get cancer. And the average age is 60. (http://www.ricancercouncil.org/cancer-info/lung- cancer-facts.php) And that's for a product which is clearly carcinogenic in testing, and that its users subject themselves to on a regular basis, right into the most sensitive area of the body - the lungs. http://www.lungcanceralliance.org/facing/risks.html If I do the rough math, if ~1 in 10 people die of lung cancer, and 30% of the population smokes. Then, what you're basically saying is that, if you smoke your whole life, that you have a 1 in 3 chance of getting and dying of lung cancer around the age of 60!
When these studies are done, you've got to look at what they're really talking about. It's fear based reporting. Throwing out a LACK of evidence as a reason to worry.
It's really saying, well, we checked the "easy" checks to see if something's safe, and nothing came up. But, I suppose, really, if you wanted to be absolutely sure, you would really need to tie a bunch of people in a room, and for 40 or 50 years, shave half of them every day with water, and half of them every day with the shaving cream. And then, see if there was a difference.
The truth is, it can't be done. But, does it matter? Probably not, because you've already done the basic tests to ensure there's no real threat.
Consider the acetominophen issue with overdosing. It is known and advised against. But, it's so rare, that Tylenol is still on the shelves. The known benefit outweighs the known risks.
> I must now challenge vegetarians in fully believing that their diet is > more natural than an animal-based source diet based on these presented > facts. It certainly no longer seems to be a more natural diet.
Again, this "natural" thing is a bad premise. It's setting yourself up for failure. What is a natural human diet? Once modern humans became modern, we were already using technology to modify our food sources.
The first? Probably exploiting fermentation, etc. The second? Probably fire. And somewhere in there, the use of brains to create tools to kill animals.
The only way to survive a winter for humans is to be omnivores. There is a reason why there's grills and beer throughout the known world. We survived by eating cooked meat and drinking alcoholic beverages. There are practical reasons for this in the time before modern refrigeration and purification.
"natural" is such a fake, loaded term. Deadly nightshade is natural. Refined aspirin is not. Which would you rather take when you have an ache?
> I would appreciate any comments from any vegetarians to help me with > this current moral ethical debate I am struggling with.
I've been a vegetarian for 17 years now, I was a person who used to read these boards back then, when persons like Rudy numbered in the 20-30's, and the number of vegetarians in the 100's.
The more you learn about modern food production, the more you'll learn that "natural" means little anymore. So, whether or not "vegetarianism" is right for you or not, shouldn't be an absolute discussion. Especially, what is "strict"? The limits are artificial. "Things with eyes", "Mammals", "not resulting in the death of the animal", "cruelty free". They're all shades of gray. You ALWAYS have an impact. The various eastern philosophies have to struggle to rectify that. What is crushed underfoot by the simple act of walking to your garden to pick a vegetable?
> The other source I read about is Red Star Vegetarian Support yeast. > However (to be confirmed) it appears to be only a *fortified* product > - which I assume is much like we add to milk - as an unnatural > supplement. I am not an advocate for supplements - in my view only the > real thing can be justified.
Again, I'd just challenge the proposition that "natural" is somehow "better" than "manmade" or "artificial". The stuff that follows isn't said with a mean voice. It's said matter of factly, and from the perspective of a person who's been there and thought through a lot of it.
Humans have been working actively on food technology for at least 10's of thousands, and likely 100's of thousands of years. Hybriding and refining and cultivating and breeding. Corn, potatoes, soybeans, etc. did not exist in Africa. You won't be finding any modern tomatoes, even heirloom varieties. Neither did chocolate. (Just learn about how chocolate is produced! LOL.) No fair studying the Eskimo diet or the caveman diet. They are based on concepts and foods used _after_ the migration from Africa.
And, stop drinking water from any tap other than your own cistern or water you find in a stream or spring. And, once you start eating meats, don't eat any chicken, lamb, beef, or pig, as they've all been bred and domesticated away from their "natural" genes. And, don't use any metal or plastic products at any point. All metals are refined and unnatural.
And, don't even get me started about the issues with fertilizer sources and water table depletion.
Quite honestly, supplements are a smart, human way of improving health. They are applied technology. They are just the next step in improving the quality and duration of our lives.
Should you be wary of the claims? Should you consider the sources? Should you watch out for health risks?
Of course you should! But, don't worry so much about whether or not it's "natural". Apply the concept of calculated risk. The odds of you being hurt vs. the benefit derived. Everyone selling a supplement has a legal staff who has done that work for you!
Andrew Jackson lived to nearly 80. With lead and mercury and god knows what else cruising through his system. And yet, we're recalling millions of toys for trace amounts of lead bound in the paint. (I once worked in a plant with lead powder exposure and it was controlled with a yearly blood test.)
I mean, really, technology is awesome and wonderful. Use it to your advantage. Don't fear it because of some definition or notion of what "natural" is. Is spoiled food due to a lack of a "artificial preservative" really preferable? What if that preservative was salt or vinegar? Is the heavy salt consumption worse for you? Is the unnatural vinegar harmful?
I take a multivitamin with ginko and ginseng, flaxseed oil, st. John's wort, and L-Tyrosine supplements every day. Except for the flaxseed oil, I can tell you how each one benefits me every day. Why would I want to lose that benefit, on the slight worry, that 40 years from now, there might be some minor issue I might have a chance of getting?
The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
2007-12-21 09:27:12 EST
"Jon" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
Hi Jon, it's nice to see you back. Just to address a couple of points..
> As a vegetarian myself, it's kind of a silly proposition to call > things "natural" any more.
'Those foods and influences to which a species is biologically adapted are those deemed "natural" to its disposition as derived by the sum total of their biological heritage from millions of years of evolution. Cumulative adaptations in each species over eons of time determines their natural dietary needs. For instance: The koala bear of Australia is adapted to eating a variety of gum leaves. The giraffe's long neck allows it to feed on the foliage of trees. The lion's fangs and claws allow it to kill and render animals for food. The eagle's keen eyesight and powerful claws make it a formidable predator of ground rodents and small game. Carnivores have become adapted to eating other animals. Non-carnivorous animals have adapted to eating vegetable matter as food. Dietary adaptations more than anything else determine the features and characteristics of all creatures. .. When considering the character of human anatomy and physiology relative to our natural diet we must do so within the context of nature, rather than in the artificial environment of modern life. In this way, we consider our natural foods as those that are consonant with our physiological faculties, rather than those that we have "acquired a taste for".
Determining Our Natural Diet is Not a Matter of Belief.
Tradition and popularity are the poorest ways to determine a proper diet. Recent changes in our external environment do not alter our biological adaptations, our internal makeup, or our natural needs in order to establish optimum well being. Biological adaptations have been spurred on by stress over eons of time and by the need to adapt. They are slow to develop requiring extremely long periods of time to evolve. Our highly industrialized environment involves more social adaptations or accommodations, and not physical or anatomical changes. By living according to our natural adaptations we can actually withstand the stress of modern life far better than if we transgress our biological needs.
The only authority you should rely on when it comes to determining what foods are best to eat is the human body. It is anatomy and physiology that decrees whether food is "acceptable" or "harmful". Determining our natural diet is not a matter of belief: its basis lies in scientific fact regarding our biological, biochemical, anatomical, and physiological features. .......' http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm
> Better living by chemistry, I say. In fact, I believe that my > vegetarianism is only possibly through modern advances. Not only > that, but feeding 6 billion people is only possible through modern > fertilization, farming, and hybridization.
>From Technological Trajectories and the Human Environment. 1997. Pp. 56-73. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. "How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature?".. 'By eating different species of crops and a more or less vegetarian diet people can change the number that a plot can feed. And large numbers of people do change their diets. The calories and protein available from present cropland could provide a vegetarian diet to ten billion people. A diet requiring food and feed totaling 6,000 calories daily for ten billion people, however, would overwhelm the capability of present agriculture on present cropland. The global totals of sun, CO2, fertilizer, and even water could produce far more food than what ten billion people need. ..' http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4767&page=56
'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge Farming in harmony with nature
By Lauren Cahoon Special to The Journal August 4, 2006
VAN ETTEN - What if every farmer decided to turn off his machinery and go without fossil fuels once and for all? And along with that, what if they all stopped putting pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers on their fields?
What if every gardener stopped pulling out their weeds and tilling their soil? Chaos, you say? Mass shortages in crops and foods, gardens choked with weeds? Perhaps so. But Rob Young, a Ph.D. student and lecturer at Cornell University, has done all of the above with his small farm - and the business, like the crops, is growing.
"We just got a new client who's running a restaurant in one of the local towns - we brought them some of our lettuce and they went crazy over it .... our lettuce just knocked them over, it's so good."
Young's Bison Ridge farm, located in Van Etten, runs almost completely without the use of fossil fuels, fossil fuel-derived fertilizers, or pesticides.
The land has been farmed since the 1850s. Young and his wife, Katharine, purchased the farm in 1989. Before that, Young worked as the Sustainable Business Director for New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. When he discovered Bison Ridge, Young started working the land even while he was still living in New Jersey. Eventually, Young and his wife moved to the Ithaca area so they could start their graduate program at Cornell.
"We started doing a little gardening... then added more and more fields .... at first, we just wanted it to be an organic farm" Rob explained. Running an organic farm is admirable enough, but at some point, Young took it a step farther.
"I had an epiphany," he said. "I was transplanting beets after a spring rain, and I noticed how the land felt all hot and sticky - almost like when you wipe out on your bike and you get a brush burn. I know it sounds cheesy, but I could feel how that (farmed) land had gotten a 'brush burn' when it was cleared and plowed.
"That's when I decided, I want to work with this land rather than against it."
After that, Young started throwing common farming practices out the window. He reduced weeding, adding copious amounts of composted mulch instead and, because of the life teeming in the healthy soils and fields around the farm, Young lets natural predators get rid of any insect pests.
No mechanized machinery is used except for the primary plowing of new fields. In fact, except for driving to and from the farm (in a hybrid car, no less), no fossil fuels are used in any part of production. Irrigation of crops is either gravity-fed from an old stone well dug in the 1800s or through pumps driven by solar energy. Super-rich compost is used on all of the crops along with clover, which fixes nitrogen and adds organic matter to the soil. Crops are grown in multi-species patches, to mimic natural communities (insect pests wreak less havoc when they're faced with diverse types of vegetation).
In addition, the farm has a large greenhouse where most of the crops are grown as seedlings during the late winter/early spring to get a head start. The entire structure is heated by a huge bank of compost, whose microbial activity keeps the growing beds at a toasty 70 degrees. During the spring and summer, most of the plants are grown in outdoor raised beds - which yield about three times as much per square meter as a regular field.
"When people visit the farm, they comment on how we're not using a lot of the land - they don't realize we're producing triple the amount of crops from less land," Young said. "It is labor intensive, but you can target your fertility management, and the produce is so good."
Young's passion for earth-friendly farming has proved to be infectious. As a student, teaching assistant and teacher at Cornell, Young has had the chance to tell many people in the community about Bison Ridge, which is how Marion Dixon, a graduate student in developmental sociology, got involved with the whole endeavor.
"I had wanted to farm forever - and was always telling myself, 'I'll do it when I'm not in school,'" she said. But when she heard Young give a speech about recycling and sustainable living at her dining hall, she knew she had found her chance to actually get involved.
Dixon and Young now work the farm cooperatively, each contributing their time and effort into the land.
"I've had a lot of ideas," Young said, "but the work has been done by a lot of people - it's a community of people who have made his happen."
He said that because of Dixon's input, they now have a new way of planting lettuce that has doubled production.
Although Young and Dixon are the only ones currently running the farm, during the summer there are always several people who contribute, from undergrads to graduate students to local people in the community - all united by a common desire to work with the land.
"There's personal satisfaction in working the soil, being on the land and outdoors," Dixon said. "You get to work out, and get that sense of community - plus there's the quality, healthy food. ... It's about believing in a localized economy, believing in production that's ecologically and community-based."
The combination of working with the earth's natural systems and community involvement has paid off. Over the course of several seasons, Bison Ridge has grown a variety of vegetables, maple syrup, wheat as well as eggs from free-range chickens. They have a range of clients, including a supermarket and several restaurants, and have delivered produce to many families in CSA (Community Sponsored Agriculture) programs.
Although small, Bison Ridge Farm has prospered due to its independence from increasingly expensive fossil fuel. Young said that, since little if any of their revenue is spent on gas, advertising or transportation, it makes the food affordable to low-income people, another goal that Young and Dixon are shooting for with their farming.
Although Young and Dixon are happy about the monetary gains the farm is producing, they have the most passion and enthusiasm for the less tangible goods the farm provides.
"It's such a delight to work with," Dixon said. "You feel alive when you're there."
On Dec 21, 5:07 am, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote: > Faking quotes,
Faking nothing. YOU are the fraud: you're not a scientist, you haven't read these "articles" you sloppily copy and paste, you COULDN'T read them. You're a total FRAUD. You're also a whore.
2007-12-21 10:17:18 EST
On Dec 21, 6:27 am, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote: > "Jon" <joncera...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:email@example.com... > > Hi Jon, it's nice to see you back. Just to address a couple of points..